Patient Opinions on Prostate Cancer Screening Are Swayed by the United States Preventative Services Task Force Recommendations

Objective To survey patient opinions on prostate cancer (PCa) screening in light of the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendation against its use. Methods We conducted a survey of all-comers to urology and primary care clinics. Participants provided demographic information and resp...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.) N.J.), 2014-08, Vol.84 (2), p.295-299
Main Authors: Maurice, Matthew J, Abouassaly, Robert
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Attitude to Health
Biological and medical sciences
Early Detection of Cancer - utilization
Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics
Humans
Male
Male genital diseases
Medical sciences
Middle Aged
Nephrology. Urinary tract diseases
Patient Education as Topic
Practice Guidelines as Topic
Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnosis
Surveys and Questionnaires
Tumors
Tumors of the urinary system
United States
Urinary tract. Prostate gland
Urology
Young Adult
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objective To survey patient opinions on prostate cancer (PCa) screening in light of the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendation against its use. Methods We conducted a survey of all-comers to urology and primary care clinics. Participants provided demographic information and responded to a 5-item questionnaire regarding their opinions on screening before and after reading opposing position statements. Results The overall response rate was 48%. After excluding incomplete questionnaires, 54 surveys were available for analysis. Patients were predominantly white, middle-aged and older, college-educated men with middle-to-upper-middle-class incomes who were seen at urology clinics. Patients rated their “pre” level of understanding of screening recommendations as good or very good (52%), okay (30%), and poor (19%). After reading the information sheets, good or very good understanding of screening recommendations improved (65%; P  = .05), and agreement with the importance of screening remained high (80%). However, nearly 20% of patients expressed a more neutral or less favorable attitude toward the risk-benefit ratio of screening ( P  = .09). Agreement that men should undergo screening, that screening helps detect cancer, and that screening saves lives remained high, regardless of the exposure. Conclusion Overall, patients favor PCa screening, but heightened awareness of the current controversy raises concerns about its potential harms. PCa screening is a complex issue, and insight into changing public opinion will be crucial to our future discussions with patients who are wrestling with the decision whether to undergo screening.
ISSN:0090-4295
1527-9995
DOI:10.1016/j.urology.2014.04.026